Mousekateer Roll Call!
Logan! Scott! Jean! Charles!
Quote:
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA Win. I tip my hat to you |
Originally Posted by LongClawTiger
Mousekateer Roll Call!
Logan! Scott! Jean! Charles! |
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Flea_Mark_Evil
....
This means I might have to start reading DC? My god. Sod it. I'll just stick to Hellboy and Gargoyles. There. No subversive media! |
((Flea -- why aren't you reading Invincible!?! It would be perfect for you!
And I'm not in-the-know enough to figure out exactly how the deal will affect the Marvel U. But I found these comments from Comic Book Resources very interesting.
Quote:
|
Dan Vado of SLG Publishing, home of Disney properties Haunted Mansion, Tron, and Gargoyles, among others NOTE: Despite being a Disney licensee, Vado wishes it to be known that he has no inside knowledge of the Marvel acquisition, and that his remarks should be taken strictly as his own opinions based on news reports. Marvel is the big winner here. My opinion, Disney overpaid (and Disney never over pays for anything) so it is obvious that Disney sees a huge licensing bonanza from the characters well down the line. Marvel books will, at some point, gain a stronger bookstore distribution partner should they decide to have their books sold through Harper. However it is worth pointing out that Disney does very little actual publishing of its own and has made most of its money by licensing characters out to third parties. It could be, again strictly conjecture here, that Marvel will end up being reduced to a licensing company and that its publishing will be scaled back dramatically as emphasis is put on content like movies and video games and less emphasis on things like publishing. Disney published its own line of comics years ago and pulled out. More recently they cut Disney Adventures magazine, a publication with sales in the hundreds of thousands. So, seriously, publishing is not a big part of the equation here. I would expect publishing to scale back somewhat. Vado continued, Big loser here are Disney licensees who created original content for their books and the creators who created that content. As is standard with any licensing deal, Disney owns the material that is created under the license and can, if they choose, republish the content once those deals expire without compensating either the companies who paid for the content or the creators who created the original material. Again, this is not a Disney thing, it is fairly standard of all licensing deals. SLG published collections of the Marvel Comics Bill & Ted comics and did not compensate them for the artwork. While I am certain that the licensing deals which are in place will continue to their conclusion I have to wonder how some of the people who have jumped into the Disney Comics business will feel about creating new content for the company knowing that it all could become property of Disney/Marvel Comics at some point. Likewise, all Disney comic book licensees now get to feel dumb knowing that the money they are giving Disney is now also going to their biggest competitor in the field. As I said above, though, publishing is not a big part of the core Disney business so it is possible that even more licensing opportunities might open up. I am not certain how much creator-owned material Marvel produces, but those deals will more than likely become a thing of the past. Vado continued, Another big loser could be Diamond and the Direct Market. It's now possible that Disney/Marvel will scale back on production, possibly focusing on cutting the line down to what it can actually manage to put out on time and just doing enough publishing to keep the characters in the public eye. It is also possible that Disney/Marvel might do all of their own distribution. In this regard the deal can be a huge game changer for everyone. Seriously, anything can happen at this point. At minimum I would expect that Diamond Book Distribution will lose Marvel from its catalog as they will no doubt move to Harper. |
Quote:
|
Marv Wolfman, former Marvel Comics Editor-in-Chief and former Disney Adventures editor The first question I've been asked is whether they will move Marvel out west. I think there are people out here who are jumping up and down praying for that to happen. While that's always a possibility, off the cuff I would tend to doubt it. The reason I was only with Disney Adventures for 4 1/2 years is that they moved their publishing from LA to New York and I wasn't willing to move back East with them. Then, a few years back, they moved some of that to either White Plains, MA or Vermont, I forget which right now and have no idea if they've moved elsewhere since. I can almost say with 100% certainty, that they would not move Marvel to the Disney lot. Hell, even Disney Adventures was off lot. Disney TV and direct-to-DVD is not on the lot, either. It's too expensive to be located there. I would assume they'd leave Marvel where it is, although a year or three from now someone could decide to incorporate it into their division and move it to Rhode Island, for all we know. Although I doubt it. Again, it all depends which division Marvel will fall under and who is in charge and how much they want to control Marvel. Wolfman continued, Disney can certainly help Marvel in terms of distribution, awareness and sales. They can get Marvel Comics into the parks and over the net better than Marvel can. Disney's Internet presence is much greater than Marvel's. They have resources Marvel does not, and I expect in a year or two we'll start seeing the results of the sale. I think Disney will be a major plus on that side. In the meantime, I assume they will leave the company as is, at least until they have an idea what they're doing with it. As far as the comics go, hopefully, they will leave Joe Quesada and company where they are and not interfere; they've creatively improved the Marvel Comics. Based on most of their Marvel Studios movies, they seem to have good people there, too. I'm not completely sure it was a wise purchase, but Disney is in the branding/franchise business and the Marvel brand is one of the largest in the world. Of course, everything will change if the Marvel characters fail at whatever Disney has planned. Wolfman continued, [Television is] actually one of the places I think we can expect to see Marvel material appear. Disney has not been able to put together as successful a boy's network as they have with girls. There has been no boy equivalent to either Hannah Montana or Secret Life of An American Girl. Their current boys network, which is supposed to have adventure shows, instead has primarily boy oriented sitcoms, but I personally don't believe boys care about those kind of shows the way girls do. Marvel would fit in very well here, providing they get back their contracts from the various networks that currently hold them. Before Disney spent 4 billion dollars, I'm certain they investigated all the properties down to the nth degree. Last time I spent 4 bil, I certainly did. |
I wanna say something REALLY mean and "in-the-know" about one of the individuals you quotes, but I won't, because I shouldn't. *snickers*
Anyway, like I said, give it 2 years to see what is going to ultimately happen.
Personally? I think this is a nightmare, so do a lot of others I've spoken to about this.
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
Quote:
((Hehe. I don't know 'em, I just thought their comments were interesting -- notice they sometimes contradict each other in their opinions -- so I posted them instead of my own unlearned opinion.|
Originally Posted by Sorah
I wanna say something REALLY mean and "in-the-know" about one of the individuals you quotes, but I won't, because I shouldn't. *snickers*
Anyway, like I said, give it 2 years to see what is going to ultimately happen. Personally? I think this is a nightmare, so do a lot of others I've spoken to about this. |
Yeah, a couple years should tell us. But Diz does have a history of molding their properties into their own image. This could be the future...
Quote:
I was under the impression that it was Marvel's policy as well as to hold all creations of it's artists hostage; hence the exodus of McFarlane and Co. to create Image.|
Originally Posted by Sorah
Well...from the ARTIST perspective...this is potentially a very, very, very bad thing. Disney policy is to "keep all artwork." This is bad for us artsy peeps. Selling of original pages and artwork is half of our ability to make money. The collector's market is up in arms about this already.
And this isn't a partnering. Now, there is a slim chance that they will "keep management as is." But my experience and observations have been that when this kind of buy out happens, they like to change things even when the company is doing well. Case and point: Acclaim buying Valiant comics. Even though they said they had the intention of keeping things as is (and the company was THRIVING, succeeding, beat out "the big 2" in multiple awards, was making millions, etc), they came in and changed EVERYTHING. Acclaim went bust and took Valiant with it. NOT that Disney is going to go bust, but I'm simply saying that Marvel publications isn't exactly doing "well." Financially. NO comic publishers have post-90s boom and comic books themselves have been re-regulated as loss-leaders. I predict bad things. Just sayin'... |
This still all has to pass anti-trust screening and if it does... it is a wait and see scenario. I don't like how Disney churns out it's mouseketeer marketing strat but on the flip side, they do have a lot of holdings that don't fall under that strat.
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
QR
Sadly I would have laughed at Marvel harder if they followed through with Cryptic to make what has now become Champions Online.
Face it that game is broken and inconsistent beyond repair.
Quote:
"Creations" to an extent. Basically there are some individuals who have creator rights on some properties (David Michelinie for Venom, for example), but those contracts didn't come into play until much later. David Michelinie nor Bob Layton have any actual "rights" to their multitude of creations on Iron Man (Jim Rhodes aka War Machine, Bethany Cabe, Justin Hammer, etc). So that just depends on the individual and when things were created...|
Originally Posted by Yogi_Bare
I was under the impression that it was Marvel's policy as well as to hold all creations of it's artists hostage; hence the exodus of McFarlane and Co. to create Image.
|
The Image exodus, as far as I know, was about those rights, but they wanted much more than even what Michelinie has for Venom. You have to understand, we artists are not paid a lot. Rates are better these days, but uhhh...not great. TRUST ME. And it was also in anticipation of say..."Hollywood" involvement. So yes, in Image and Co.'s case, you can broker a deal where you still "own" your property, but even then, it's not as all Camelot-y as they had originally wanted. GRANTED, you have a lot of ownership with Image and Co. than with any sweetheart deal with Marvel or DC.
As for the hording of the art itself, no. It has been since FOREVER that Marvel and DC return the pages to the artists for them to sell on the collector's market. In fact, most of the time, unless manual inking is taking place, original art stays with the penciller (split up among the involved artists). Everything is scanned in now, so you never even have to give Marvel tangible pages.
What I was saying is that Disney does NOT hold that same policy. They are a bit draconian in that they horde every single scrap paper.
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
Quote:
*Dies laughing*
|
Originally Posted by Heroid
((Hehe. I don't know 'em, I just thought their comments were interesting -- notice they sometimes contradict each other in their opinions -- so I posted them instead of my own unlearned opinion.
Yeah, a couple years should tell us. But Diz does have a history of molding their properties into their own image. This could be the future... |
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
So does this mean that Disney will now own half the copyright to "Super Hero" As i was to understand that word is only allowed to be used by Marvel and DC to describe a super powered character with good moral intent. I fear it may usher in a new era of litigatigation...where as Marvel and DC can just use a posturing feignt to get others to back down and fold under the copyrighted material Disney has the money to seriously wound anyone that may tread the line.
Virtue
--Blazing Tiger-- 50 Invulrn/Fire Tank
<<Virtues Tankiest Kitty>>
Try my Arcs: #4892 and #112548
@Blazing Tiger and @Aqua Fox
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BlazingTiger
So does this mean that Disney will now own half the copyright to "Super Hero" As i was to understand that word is only allowed to be used by Marvel and DC to describe a super powered character with good moral intent. I fear it may usher in a new era of litigatigation...where as Marvel and DC can just use a posturing feignt to get others to back down and fold under the copyrighted material Disney has the money to seriously wound anyone that may tread the line.
|
Lollerskates XD Are you talking about the whole "Claws" thing? XD
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
((It also occurs to me that if Diz decides that they own the work the artists create that it's going to have a disastrous effect on cons all over the country. I know for a fact that a lot of the artists pay for their con trips by selling previously published art at the cons. If they don't get their work back from the company, then it's not only a major loss of income for them, it might mean less pros at the cons.))
Quote:
((That's true too. The two companies do own the rights to "super hero". But they only own the rights to the two-word version. That's why we have superheroes now instead of super heroes.))
|
Originally Posted by BlazingTiger
So does this mean that Disney will now own half the copyright to "Super Hero" As i was to understand that word is only allowed to be used by Marvel and DC to describe a super powered character with good moral intent. I fear it may usher in a new era of litigatigation...where as Marvel and DC can just use a posturing feignt to get others to back down and fold under the copyrighted material Disney has the money to seriously wound anyone that may tread the line.
|
Quote:
That's what I was saying earlier, Heroid. :P|
Originally Posted by Heroid
((It also occurs to me that if Diz decides that they own the work the artists create that it's going to have a disastrous effect on cons all over the country. I know for a fact that a lot of the artists pay for their con trips by selling previously published art at the cons. If they don't get their work back from the company, then it's not only a major loss of income for them, it might mean less pros at the cons.))
|
Not only that, but a lot of regular money comes from convention. I've seen single artists go to a convention and make BANK. But it's also how they pay their taxes, they pay their mortgage, etc. As said, artists kinda get paid **** and unless you're contracted,there is no health insurance, dental, nada. :P
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
Quote:
((Sorry -- I was drinking Bradder's keg as I was going through this thread earlier, and somehow misunderstood what you were saying as you thought that you'd look cute in a Minnie Mouse costume. |
Originally Posted by Sorah
That's what I was saying earlier, Heroid. :P
Not only that, but a lot of regular money comes from convention. I've seen single artists go to a convention and make BANK. But it's also how they pay their taxes, they pay their mortgage, etc. As said, artists kinda get paid **** and unless you're contracted,there is no health insurance, dental, nada. :P |
But it's a point that needs to be made over and over in forums all over the internet. I'm not sure Diz is going to understand the culture they just bought into and the damage they could do there.
))
((Also, now I KNOW I'm never going back to Marvel -- I'm still pissed off about the whole Bambi's mother thing.))
Quote:
*falls out of her chair laughing*
|
Originally Posted by Heroid
((Also, now I KNOW I'm never going back to Marvel -- I'm still pissed off about the whole Bambi's mother thing.))
|
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
Quote:
((Hey, piss didn't get censored! We can say piss on the boards! Piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss.|
Originally Posted by Heroid
((Also, now I KNOW I'm never going back to Marvel -- I'm still pissed off about the whole Bambi's mother thing.))
|
Wow... that much pissing... it's like... such a relief.))
Quote:
ROFL Heroid are you okay? <_< if you've been drinking, that's no fair, you should've told me. I woulda joined ya :P
|
Originally Posted by Heroid
((Hey, piss didn't get censored! We can say piss on the boards! Piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss piss.
Wow... that much pissing... it's like... such a relief.)) |
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
Quote:
It's a nice little movie from the 1980s which cast Lea Thompson (from the Back to the Future films, among other projects) in a romantic role.|
Originally Posted by The_Coming_Storm
Lol? What is Howard the Duck?
|
You should rent it. Really.
Forum Game: Lower the Rep
Quote:
((WRONG! It was a terrible movie from the 1980's! Everyone involved with it should be ashamed!|
Originally Posted by MOUT__
It's a nice little movie from the 1980s which cast Lea Thompson (from the Back to the Future films, among other projects) in a romantic role.
You should rent it. Really. |
However, what Howard the Duck really was was an excellent Marvel Comics series from the mad typewriter of the late, great Steve Gerber with the lengendary Frank Brunner and Gene Colan on the art. One of the best comic book series ever. Truly a singular moment in comic book history. Howard was also the "All-Night Party" canditate for president in the 1976 presidential race.
))
Quote:
((Hey, it was Bradders that gave me the keg.))
|
Originally Posted by Sorah
ROFL Heroid are you okay? <_< if you've been drinking, that's no fair, you should've told me. I woulda joined ya :P
|
I enjoyed Howard the Duck. Thus you can rest assured that it was, indeed, a horrible film.
Quote:
Ewwww beer. I hates beer. HATESSSSS IT! Ew...did I just invoke LOTR? I should be shot.| ((Hey, it was Bradders that gave me the keg.)) |
Quote:
| I enjoyed Howard the Duck. Thus you can rest assured that it was, indeed, a horrible film. |
EXAMPLE? True Blood. I watch that god awful HORRIBLE television like it were handing out blow. Why? I really dunno. I'm not really into vamps....but I suppose it's like a trainwreck...UGH it is awful.
However...the character of Eric? Hot. Mmmmm
In the 80s, bad TV/Movies meant this:
In 2009, bad TV/Movies mean equates to THIS:
Boys, I suggest you avert your eyes!
*cackle* *runs*
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
Hell, I can't wait for Namor to beat King Triton and render Arial an orphan for the throne of Atlantis.
Virtue
--Blazing Tiger-- 50 Invulrn/Fire Tank
<<Virtues Tankiest Kitty>>
Try my Arcs: #4892 and #112548
@Blazing Tiger and @Aqua Fox